The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 537. Reaction to Imminent Liberal Victory in Canada

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson analyzes Canada’s current and possibly next prime minister, Mark Carney. From his résumé to his book “Values,” Dr. Peterson explores the motivations, contradictions, and unsettling strengths of the man now calling for a snap election. Carney is seeking a mandate from the Canadian people—but is he the right man for the job?  This episode was filmed on March 21st, 2025.

Hello everybody. As some of you may know and some of you don't, Canada suddenly has a new Prime Minister. His name is Mark J. Carney and he's the replacement for Justin Trudeau running the Liberal Party in Canada. That means that we Canadians need to know who Mark Carney is and to the degree that Canada has a role to play internationally that everybody needs to know. So if you want to know who Canada's new Prime Minister is and you want to know who Mark J. Carney is and whether or not you should support him or vote for him if you're Canadian or what you should think of him if you're part of the international audience, then this is the podcast for you.

Carney is a mystery to Canadians in large part, not least because he's been a political figure for a very short period of time. And the election that's being called is a snap election. So Canadians aren't gonna have, and the rest of the world aren't gonna have a lot of time to get to know him and the rest of the world aren't going to have a lot of time to get to know him before the determination of his status as Prime Minister is going to be finalized. Now, I want to make a case for Carney first, as powerfully as I can, so that we give the devil its due, so to speak.

And I think the right way to do that is with a review of his resume. It's quite clear to me that Canadians are entranced with Carney, whose Liberal Party has risen dramatically in the polls in the last month. They're entranced with him for two reasons. And one is because Trump has been craning around like a bull in the china shop with regards to his comments about Canada, placing tariffs on Canada, describing us as not worthy of having our own country and fated if we're lucky to become the 51st state. This has produced a groundswell of pro-Canadian sentiment in consequence even among liberals who haven't been noted for their patriotism over the last 10 years.

This is a common occurrence in Canada historically. It's very frequently the case that in Canada, we learn to pull together because of a threat, real or supposed, emanating from the American elephant that occupies the place of primacy south of us. So Carney is gonna, and the liberals have got a boost because of Trump's rampaging around, but also because Carney is a new face, a new fresh face, hypothetically. And so people who are a little leery, let's say, of the conservatives under Poliev have

every reason to hope that Carney is the right man for the time. Now, he's capitalized on that to some degree by positioning himself as an outsider who will bring fresh new ideas and a novel and innovative approach to the Canadian political situation. And we'll take that claim apart a little bit later. Suffice it to say that the combination of his novelty a little bit later. Suffice it to say that the combination of his novelty and the knockoff consequences of Trump's comments

with regard to Canada have moved the liberals over the last month from a place where they were essentially facing electoral extinction of a historically unprecedented sort to neck and neck or arguably in the lead of Pierre Poliev's conservatives. And so why have Canadians turned to Carney apart from Trump? Well, Carney has a remarkable resume and if the choice is Carney or Pierre Poliev, it would be easy for Canadians to assume

that Carney has everything that Poliev does and more. Poliev's a career politician, and that means he's faced the electorate. It means he's done a lot of door-to-door knocking. It means he's listened to Canadians at the ground level and been appraised of their concerns, and Carney doesn't have that, but Poliev is also a career politician.

Now, Carney is a career bureaucrat, and he has a resume that on the face of it, you might be regarded as preferable in its depth to Poliev's. So I want to familiarize you with his resume. And then I want to walk you through what it signifies because we should assess not only what he's done and what he looks like on paper, but what that actually means, practically and conceptually speaking, and with regards to its impact on Canada and the broader world.

So we're gonna start by walking through his resume. So currently, as we already pointed out, he's Prime Minister of Canada, and that's been the case since March 14th. Now, here's a couple of things to understand about that. The first is that he's Prime Minister, and he holds no seat in the House of Commons, which means he hasn't faced any electorate. He's not, he does not have a mandate from the

Canadian people. And about 130,000 liberals voted for him. So he's basically become prime minister with no test of the validity of his personality or his political stance being presented to Canada by a tiny proportion of the Canadian population, about half of 1% of the Canadian electorate. And so that means it's actually incumbent on him to do exactly what he's doing, which is to call an election, but also not to be parading around the world, let's say, especially in places like Europe,

acting as if he is prime minister with a mandate. Now, he's done a fair bit of that in the last couple of weeks and we want to keep that in mind and we also want to keep in mind the fact that the election is very likely to be of incredibly short duration because there's a reason for that too. Okay, so currently he's Prime Minister, that's obviously somewhat impressive. He got a bachelor's degree from Harvard in 1988 and developed an interest in economics at that point. Then he went to the University of Oxford.

So these are major league educational institutions. And back in the late 80s and the early 90s, they were still highly credible institutions, I would say. So he was at Harvard in 1988. I was teaching there from 92 to 96. My experience at Harvard was stellar. I thought it was an absolutely remarkable institution. So again, I said I would give the devil his due.

And to become a bachelor, to get a bachelor's from Harvard is a genuine accomplishment. It certainly indicates that you have a fair bit of raw cognitive power and some real conscientious discipline. And so, and then he went to Oxford, which is another one of the world's premier universities. He got a master's degree in economics in 93 and a doctorate in 95. So, and then he has an honorary degree from the University of Manitoba, Doctorate of Laws.

So, educationally, that's very stellar. Now, with regards to his professional experience, he was governor of the Bank of Canada, and that's a major deal as well. And then even more impressively, he was governor of the Bank of England from July 1, 2013 to March 15, 2020. Now that's pretty impressive, eh, because it's not typical for the Brits to hire someone who isn't one of their own, so to speak, although he does hold British

and Irish passports to lead an institution as August, as the Bank of England. And so again, on first glance, it would be reasonable for Canadians to propose, to surmise that Mr. Carney has had his credentials vetted not only within Canada and with regards to these educational institutions, but by the relatively skeptical Brits who decided he was the man to run an operation

as significant as the Bank of England. Goldman Sachs, he worked for Goldman Sachs, a huge financial organization from 1990 to 2003, where he was managing director of investment banking. He worked in London, Tokyo, New York and Toronto offices. He worked in the Department of Finance in Canada from 2004 to 2008. He was chair and head of transition investing. Now that's getting a little more relevant to the point we're going to make later. He was chair and head of transition investing for Brookfield Acid Management from 2020 to

2025. He just resigned upon entering the political sphere. He oversaw investments in renewable energy. And then he was United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance from 2020 to 2025 as well. He was appointed by Antonio Gutierrez, who's the secretary general of the UN, to mobilize private finance for climate goals.

He co-founded the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. Okay, so now we need to take that apart. Now, he's also written a book, Values Building a Better World for All, which was published in 2021. We're going to talk about that as well. So what do we say about Carney's experience and his resume? Well, the real question is, what is he aiming at?

Right, so he's got a stellar educational background and this vast experience on the international side. But the question is, what has he concluded from that and what has he done in consequence and what is he planning to do in the future? Now, I read Carney's book Values very, very carefully. And so the reason I want to walk you through that is because that's his carefully thought through statement of principles and apes. And so it's useful to take a person at his word on the written side.

And so I think we can derive from values, what Carney's values are, what values he thinks Canadians do and should hold, what we can conclude about what he's already done for Canada and on the international stage and where things are headed in the future. And so now the first, I'm gonna take Carney's values book apart in two ways.

The first thing I wanna tell you is what he thinks Canadians values are. Okay, so he's setting himself up as an arbiter of the Canadian ethos. And to do that in his book, in the first couple of chapters, and then at the end of the book, he tells us all what makes Canada the country that it is. And so we want to delve into that. All right, so Carney's conclusion with regards to Canada's core values are a leftist, utopian, globalist view of the Western tradition. So he believes, for example, that the core Canadian values

are fairness and equity, resilience and adaptability, sustainability and responsibility, and community and cooperation. Okay, so the first thing I'd like to do, those are all terms that sound positive and that could in principle bring people together on the basis of a vision. Fairness and equity, resilience and adaptability, sustainability and responsibility, community and cooperation.

But the first thing I'd like to point out to all of you who are listening is that although Carney claims that those are core Canadian values, that claim is not correct. Those are core globalist, socialist, utopian, net zero promoting environmentalist values, but the core Canadian values are actually derived from the Judeo-Christian, Western, broadly Western, and English common law tradition. And so I'm going to outline what those are, just so you can see the contrast between those values, which have this patina or aura of high-flown positive emotion, but bear little relationship to the genuine historical reality and do not describe the values that made Canada the wealthy, free, productive Western democracy that it is. So Canada is actually founded on the principles of individual liberty and rights, the rule

of law, equality and justice, and equality there doesn't mean equality of outcome and it doesn't mean economic equality. It means equality of value before the law and equality of opportunity and responsibility in order. And so those are values that are very different than the value set that Carney is putting forward. And so then you might ask, if Carney didn't derive what he believes Canadian values to be from the historical reality of Canada, from what source did he derive his values? Now, you also might wonder why it's important to even delve into this.

Well, the first conclusion we could draw is that Carney wouldn't have written a whole book about values if he didn't think that it was important to delve into values, and he certainly wouldn't have written a book revealing his own values if he didn't think it was important to communicate to Canadians and people around the world what he thinks Canadian values and his values are and should be. So my focus on values, although I certainly believe, as he does, that values are fundamentally important, I'm focusing on values because that's the focus that Carney himself chose. All right, so this is where core values into the beginnings of policy.

All right, so Carney in his book Values outlines his support for three of what I regard as the least credible ideas that have emerged on the international landscape and the intellectual landscape in the last 20 years. So first of all, he's an explicit advocate of the diversity, equity and inclusivity principles that have destroyed the modern universities, that have corrupted our judiciary and our political institutions, and that have allowed the judiciary and our political institutions and that have allowed the liberals to smuggle, the modern federal liberals to smuggle in

what's essentially a relatively radical leftist agenda under the guise of classical liberalism. Diversity, inclusivity and equity, the DEI holy tr Trinity is a political policy movement predicated on the idea that Western society, and that would include Canada, is a corrupt patriarchy in its essence that marginalizes a variety of groups

and purposefully so delegitimizing them. And that the appropriate response to that is to segregate and identify people on the basis of their group identity, and that would include race and sex and gender and all the other isms, all the other ism identities that you may have heard in the last 10 years, to divide people on the basis of those identities

and to privilege the marginalized, to bring them to the center. Now, some of that presumption derives from postmodern philosophy, and some of it is essentially Marxist in its orientation. And so, Carney's derivation of Canadian values, when the pedal hits the metal, let's say, or the rubber hits the road, the manner in which Carney translates his interpretation of Canadian values is the same manner that the radical leftists in the Democratic Party, for example, in the United States translated the same value propositions. And that's to become an advocate for diversity, equity and inclusivity, and to assume that human beings should be divided

on the basis of their race and their sexual identity and their gender, et cetera, and that our culture is essentially oppressive at its core. And so I believe that idea to be discreditable across multiple dimensions of analysis. It's certainly the case that it was roundly rejected by the American electorate in the last election cycle. You can also see that the Democrats themselves in

the United States are backpedaling rapidly on the DEI front because they realized that it's a losing game in the short, medium, and long run. And so the first thing we might note is that when Carney is trying to formulate policy, one of the sets of policies that he put forward include this discreditable and divisive DEI formulation that's being part and parcel of the maneuvers by intellectuals to tilt the entire political world in a radically revolutionary and leftist

direction. Okay, now, Carney also points out that he's a free market advocate, but you see, this is a rather serpentine proposition because in his book, Values, Carney also points out that all things considered, although the free market is necessary, it doesn't really do a good job of valuing the world. So he points out, for example, that it's preposterous that Amazon, the company, is valued financially, economically higher

than the Amazon rainforest. And while that sounds good in principle, it's a very vague and foolish claim. What Carney is pointing out is that the free market system can't attribute a financial value to everything. And that's true, and it's a problem. But his solution is a technocratic solution, and understanding that helps us understand the implications of his educational pathway and his career. See, Carney, who has been a stellar advocate for the world economic forum policies, for

example, believes that because the free market cannot adequately value everything, that it's up to a handful of highly educated, elitist technocrats to step in and substitute central planning so that the inadequacies of the free market system are properly rectified. Now the question that begs is, well, which experts, why those experts, what legitimacy do they have as, let's say, unelected bureaucrats at the UN or the WAF or with regards to the economic union, what the European Economic Union, what legitimacy do they possess to make those central planning decisions and by what principles are they willing to value those things that can't be valued from within the free market system?

Well, we already started to delve into that when we talked about the diversity, equity, and inclusivity provisions in Carney's thinking. But the answer to that, you see, the answer to that points us in the direction of the most fundamental, appropriate critique of Carney's thought. So Mark Carney and his globalist compatriots genuinely believe that carbon overproduction constitutes an existential threat to humanity. Now, the IPCC, which is the UN body that delves into such things, has not recognized that

there's any such thing as a climate emergency. There are climate concerns, but that's not the same as an emergency. And Carney recently claimed to eliminate the carbon tax from Canadian consumers, but that's a temporary pause. And he's transferred the carbon tax into the industrial domain so that it's hidden from Canadians and he's going to continue to pursue it. Now, how do I know that? Because the primary idea in Carney's book, Values, is that the climate crisis, which translates into carbon dioxide overproduction, is so dire an existential a threat that every single financial decision that every individual and every institution across the world makes should be focused on the necessity to ameliorate carbon production above all else. And so make no mistake about it,

even though Carney has made, taken steps to back off the carbon tax in Canada because of its radical and justified unpopularity, the fundamental axiom of his entire worldview is that human beings are locked

in a existential battle with nature itself and that we're a destructive force and that we're overproducing carbon dioxide and that's going to decimate the planet and that we have to do everything we possibly can to ameliorate that threat no matter what it takes. And so what that means for someone like Carney, who already believes that it's people like him that should be in control because of their superior intelligence and their better grasp of the realities of the future.

It also means that he's facing the kind of existential emergency, carbon dioxide overproduction, that justifies any maneuver possible on the basis that of course he has to do that because after all he's saving the planet. And so he can do things like tell Canadians that he's dispensing with the carbon tax, which he hasn't done because it's still on the books and it's only a temporary pause,

but he's still an avid advocate of net zero policies and believes, for example, and Canadians should very much listen to this, that three quarters of the fossil fuels, fossil fuel reserves in the world have to be left in the ground. Okay. And so he believes that we should approach net zero by the year 2050 and that it'll require a $2 trillion investment on the part of Canadians in order to make that happen. Look, we can't stabilize the climate unless we get to net zero. And so we're doing progress, but we're going at it slowly.

We're doing progress. We need to accelerate it. We want to stop coal, not just new coal, but stop use of coal by 2030. And just put that in perspective, that's about $300,000 out of your family's pockets. Right? So that's what, that's what Carney's planning. He's planning to charge you $300,000 to move Canada towards net zero by 2050. Now, let's take that apart a little bit because you might say, well, if the planet's in serious

trouble, then everything is up for grabs. And we're going to have to spend that money because there's going to be a catastrophe. And the first question would be, well, is that catastrophe impending? And the second question would be, even if it is, is that the right plan? So let's answer the first question first. And I would say that there isn't a catastrophe impending. Far more people die from cold weather than from warm weather. And there's no evidence whatsoever that an emergency is at hand. And the other thing I would say about that is that the biggest piece of data pertaining to the carbon issue that's emerged reliably over the last 20 years is the global greening

phenomenon. So what's actually happened as carbon dioxide levels have risen, for whatever reason, since some of that might be human-caused, what's actually happened is that semi-arid areas around the world have become more green, and by a lot. So the planet is actually 20% greener than it was 30 years ago, despite the prognostications of people like Al Gore, and there's a very specific reason for that, and the reason is is that plants love carbon dioxide, so it can hardly be regarded as a pollutant. And it turns out that if carbon dioxide levels are elevated, even slightly, as they have been in the last

hundred years, let's say, plants can breathe more easily. Okay, well, so what? Well, so you get more plant growth and more plants, and if you're a fan of green, like the greens hypothetically are, and the environmentalists, you kind of think more plants would be better, and we see about a 13% increase in crop production in consequence of that, by the way, and so there's 20% more vegetation worldwide, but it's also mostly green in the most noticeable way in semi-arid areas. Now, you know, you heard the prognostications

that as the climate warmed, that the deserts would expand, but actually exactly the opposite is happening. Semi-arid areas around the Sahara Desert, for example, are shrinking. And the reason for that is that as carbon dioxide levels go up, because plants can breathe more easily, the breathing pores that they use can shrink in size because they don't have to be as open to pull in enough carbon dioxide, and that means that they

lose less water, and that means that they can grow in drier areas. And so now the reason I'm telling you all that is because there are effects of carbon dioxide increase and some of them might be troublesome and some of them might be beneficial, but there's no evidence whatsoever that there's an emergency. And I think a very strong case can be made, for example, that we were at historic lows

in terms of carbon dioxide proportion in the atmosphere across a 500 million year period, right? So now and 50 years ago, our atmosphere had the lowest concentration of carbon dioxide that's been recorded in half a billion years. So that's a long timeframe. We're getting close to the point

where plants were actually gonna struggle, going to have to struggle to breathe because the carbon dioxide levels were so low. And so now they've increased somewhat and plants are having an easier time and our crops are about 13% more efficient in consequence and the planet is actually getting greener. So I don't think there's any reason at all for us to assume that we have an ecological emergency on our hand. I think, in fact, you can make somewhat of the

opposite case, but be that as it may, let's say there's room for reasonable difference with regard to that interpretation. If you're more interested in that, I would highly recommend the work of Bjorn Lombard, who's a Danish economist, who's organized teams of economic analysts, the very good ones, Nobel Prize-winning economists, to assess the costs and benefits of carbon dioxide increase over about a hundred-year period.

And I don't know anyone more informed than Lombard to have such a discussion, and he certainly has concluded, A, that there's no emergency, B, that there will be some costs to CO2 increase over the next 100 years, and that'll mean that we'll be somewhat less richer in 100 years than we would have been, given our trends for economic improvement, and that, most importantly, that spending untold trillions of dollars, like Carney wants to do, $2 trillion for Canada, for example, by 2050, to ameliorate the minor effects of climate change is catastrophic economically.

So I don't really believe there is a carbon dioxide emergency, but even if there is a concern, spending vast amounts of money carelessly in a rush and panic is not going to do the planet any good and is going to be particularly hard on poor people who are particularly dependent on, who are particularly affected by energy cost changes. So what that means is if you increase energy cost, for example, by making fossil fuel more expensive before there's anything approximating a reasonable explanation, mostly what you do is devastate the poor.

And you devastate the poor in the Western world, and you absolutely devastate the poor in places like Africa. Now, the globalist utopians like Carney are perfectly willing to say, well, we're going to have to pay a price in the moment because the situation is so dire. And even if the poor have to suffer right now, it's much less than the poor in a hundred years would suffer if we didn't take action. And my response to that is you're willing to sacrifice the actual poor now for your

hypothetical poor in a hundred years, and you're modeling those hypothetical poor with your economic and climate models, which are radically unstable. And you also believe, and this is absolutely delusional, that you have the economic and scientific wherewithal to do anything like a reasonable estimation of what the Earth's economy is gonna be like in a hundred years.

Yeah, well, good luck on that front. And so it's definitely the case that poor people are gonna pay a terrible price for the carbon dioxide emergency fear mongering in the moment. And it's completely debatable whether these steps that have been taken to ameliorate the problem, which don't work by the way,

are going to have any beneficial effect whatsoever on anyone at all 100 years out. We just can't model 100 years out. That's just no one who's credible thinks we can develop economic models that predict over a 100 year period. So, all right, so let's pull back from that now a little bit. So, all right, so let's pull back from that now a little bit. So why don't we also take a look at, let's give the devil his due in a more comprehensive way and let's assume that Carney's right about the carbon dioxide emergency and he's not, and that radical steps have to be taken

to ameliorate the problem, and that those radical steps will have the desired effect, right? Because Carney's promises that if we dump $2 trillion into renewables and net zero, that that's gonna have a measurable impact on the climate and carbon dioxide amelioration, and that's gonna be beneficial for people. But we don't have to guess at this anymore

because there's been a number of countries, including Canada, that have taken steps to ameliorate fossil fuel utilization and to move towards net zero. And so let's start with Canada. So one of the things you guys might have noticed is that in the last month, Trump signed a trillion dollar international deal for the sale of natural gas. Now, the Prime Minister of Germany, the head of Germany, sorry, not the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister of Japan came to Canada a year ago, two years ago, cap in hand, asking the Liberal Party if Canada could make long-term arrangements with their countries to provide them with natural gas. And Trudeau said he couldn't make a business case for that. And Trump just signed a trillion dollar deal.

And I guess that was the business case. And that's $150,000 for every Canadian family that went down the drain just with that one deal. And there's estimates that the Trudeau liberals, the Liberal Party has put the kibosh on $650 million worth of natural resource projects over the last 10 years. And so that's how we've been solving the carbon dioxide crisis from the Canadian perspective. And what's been the consequence of that from the environmental side?

Well, first of all, Canada produces such a tiny proportion of carbon dioxide output on the international stage that we don't even count, plus our country is so forested that we're radically negative in the carbon dioxide production direction anyways. And even if we have rectified our carbon dioxide output by calamitously destroying our fossil fuel economy, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, because all that's happened is that China, that has, you know, like 25 times as many people as Canada, and India, which has even more people, economies and populations that are so large that they make Canada fundamentally irrelevant on the industrial and the population side.

All they've been doing is picking up the slack. And so China's carbon dioxide output has increased radically over the last 20 years, as has India's swamping any possible effects of climate amelioration by tiny populations like Canada. And the Chinese and the Indians think, well, why can't we benefit from industrialization, just like the West has? A question Africa is asking as well, and they're absolutely right. And so all it's meant, you can see this with Australia, for example, because Australia has foregone all coal-fired electrical production

in their country, but they ship coal to China, and China builds coal plants like mad, as does India. And since we all breathe the same air, all that's actually happened is the industrial power that could have been Australia's and Canada's has been shifted to China, which is a terrible authoritarian communist state, and the India, which at least has the advantage of being somewhat like a Western democracy. So now, so the Canadian contribution to environmental improvement has been negligible,

absolutely negligible, no practical effect whatsoever, but the economic consequences have been absolutely dire. So Canada now, the richest Canadian province, has a lower gross domestic product per person. So that's an indication of our total economic productivity. We're lower than Mississippi. Canadians produce 60 cents of value for every dollar the Americans produce,

despite the fact that 10 years ago, and that's before the Liberals were in power for a decade, Canada and the US were equal. We were at parity. And so, and the forecast for Canada's economic development, and this assumes something like the continuation of the policies that were put in place by the Trudeau liberals is that we will have the worst economic performance of the 40 most developed countries in the world for the next four decades. So if you want more of that, much more expensive fossil fuel, much more expensive air conditioning and heat for your house in frigid Canada, and you want your children to live in a society that's radically poor so the globalist utopians

can fail to do anything for the planet, then Carney's your man. And these corporations that he worked for and these positions he held were all positions that enabled him not only to follow the doctrines of those who believe that net zero is an existential necessity, not only to follow them like Trudeau did, but to lead them. Because you see, Carney is not only an acolyte of the net zero globalist vision, he's a true leader and it was Carney was a climate envoy to the UN, for example. And he also organized a very large number of the world's biggest financial institutions to pursue net zero policies in preference even to their financial obligations, to their

shareholders. And so to understand Carney, you see, you have to understand that he prioritizes the hypothetical health of the planet, narrowly defined as the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so a very narrow environmentalist view. He prioritizes that above all else. All of the values that he describes in his book, everything that Carney holds dear, is predicated on his view that we're facing an apocalyptic future on the environmental side that's all due only to carbon dioxide overproduction.

And that means we don't even pay any attention to any of the other environmental problems that are confronting us, like oceanic overfishing, for example, which also constitute issues that should be of some concern. And so, Carney's entire vision of the world and vision of Canada hinges on his faith, and I would call it a quasi-religious faith, that the planet's atmosphere is to be prioritized above absolutely everything, and that that's such an emergency that everything is Everything is permitted everything is permitted and so that means Carney can do things for example like

Present himself as the kind of outsider of the Liberal Party for example who will come in with radically new views and develop Canada into an industrial powerhouse. It's like first of all That's a lie. It's actually two lies. First of all, he is not an outsider. Carney is a consummate, bureaucratic, liberal insider. He's the godfather of Chrystia Freeland's child, and his new cabinet is composed of all the people who played the roles that we've described already

in the Trudeau years. And it's certainly the case that he hasn't budged from his presumption that we have to hit net zero by 2050 because that's still up on his website. And he could say that he wants to lead Canada into an industrial future that's successful, but if you read his book, Values, you'll see that he means that we're going to produce a new renewable economy, which in Canada is insane, apart from perhaps hydroelectric production and nuclear, if the Greens were willing to go in that direction.

But what Carney means by industrial progress on the Canadian front is a new and unproven economy that relies primarily on a net zero shift and renewables. So now we might say, how has that worked out in the rest of the world? Well, Canada's attempts on the environmental front have had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the health of the atmosphere globally, despite the fact that it's cost Canadians their primacy of position economically and put us on a downward trend

that is likely to continue for at least 40 years. If you want a future for your children and your grandchildren that is characterized by more and more wealth disparity and increasing emphasis on a net zero future and massive disparity between Canada and the US in terms of economic growth, then Carney's definitely your man.

So with regards to this promised utopia of a new future, one of the things Carney says, for example, after he talks about the fact that 75% of our fossil fuel resources will have to be left in the ground is this promised new magical utopia of renewable jobs especially for places like Alberta. Now he says that if we unleash innovation in the private sector that all the problems that are associated with the transition to net zero will somehow be solved. So let's see what's happened in countries where that's

actually being attempted. So I think see what's happened in countries where that's actually being attempted. So I think we should talk about Germany and the UK. So Germany has been more green arguably than Canada, let's say for the last 10 years, and they've shut off their nuclear plants and they've made a transition to renewables. And so what's the consequence of that? Well, one consequence is that German energy prices are now five times as expensive as they are in the US. And then you might say, well, that's a small price to pay for saving the planet, but then we could take that apart.

So Germany is rapidly de-industrializing and their economy is tanking. And all the industrial production that they no longer manage is only shifting to other places in the world like China and India. So it's not like it's going away. It's just not happening in Germany. And they're dependent on, increasingly dependent on renewables, solar and wind. And Germany is one of the world's sunniest countries.

And it's also susceptible to what they call wind drought. So there are long periods of time where the solar arrays and the windmills aren't producing any electricity. And like zero electricity is not very much electricity. Now, why is that a catastrophe? It's like, well, do you want your refrigerator on or off? Or even more to the point, do you want to be able to go to the hospital and make sure that there's electricity when you're having emergency surgery, etc. You know, and there are signs, for example, that places like Australia that have been moving down the renewable pathway are facing the imminent threat of rolling blackouts, and that could easily happen in places like Germany. Okay, so now the problem with renewables is that we can't store the energy. We don't have the

battery technology and the battery infrastructure. Not even close, and it's going to be a long time before we do, at least 20 years, maybe longer than that. And so the question is now what do you have to do because renewable energy is so unreliable? Sometimes at night the sun doesn't shine, in case you hadn't noticed, and the wind stops blowing and so then renewable production falls to zero. Now you have to have something to back that up. And worse, you have to have something of the same size as the entire renewable grid because otherwise it can't handle the power demands. And so that means that as you switch to a renewable grid,

you have to have another grid in place that has exactly the same capacities, and it has to be not renewable. So what that means is that when you build a renewable grid, you build it in addition to the pre-existing grid. And then you might say, well, if the renewable sources aren't producing energy, you could

just turn to nuclear, but there's a couple of problems with that. First of all, you can't turn a nuclear power plant on and off quickly, as you might well imagine. And the Germans, for example, scuttled their nuclear plants. And so what have they done? They've turned to coal burning plants. And the Germans don't burn anthracite, which is high quality coal that doesn't produce much particulate matter, which is like the dust pollution that would be associated with smog. And they burn

lignite, which is low quality coal and it produces a lot of particulate, plus it produces a lot of carbon dioxide. And so what's happened in Germany after 10 years of green idiocy is that their power prices are five times as expensive. They're hyper reliant on places like Russia and the Middle East for their fossil fuel production, not least because Canada was too daft to enter into an agreement with them. And they pollute more per unit of energy produced than they did 10 years ago. So even if you accept the environmentalist argument that carbon dioxide overproduction is an existential crisis, which it isn't, and you say, well, something substantial needs to be done to

ameliorate the threat. You have to observe that when something substantial has been done, so that's the creation, let's say, of a renewable power grid, the consequence is not only that the atmosphere doesn't improve with regards to carbon dioxide proportion, but that the pollution problem actually gets much worse, as well as energy becoming more expensive and unreliable.

And so what? That's what you want Carney to do for Canada. And for Canada, there's not a country in the world that's more dependent fundamentally for its existence on reliable energy, because Canada is uninhabitable without an unbelievably well-developed industrial and energy infrastructure just to keep us alive when it's 40 bloody below. And then our economy is radically dependent on our natural resource production. Now, it shouldn't be that dependent on natural resource production because we should be doing value-added investment, for example, refining our fossil fuel resources to a higher degree

than we currently do. Most of that's done in the United States, and we should do things to ensure that we make the proper transition into a technologically driven future. But Carney says absolutely nothing about any of that in his book Values. And so he just magically handwaves and says, Oh, well, if you unleash the private sector, there'll be this magical net zero transformation and everyone will have much more productive jobs and the planet will be much greener and we won't need to rely on fossil fuels. Well, we don't just rely on fossil fuels for energy, folks, we rely on

fossil fuels to make damn near everything that we make, including our agricultural products. And so you also hear the net zero people claiming that agricultural production has to be slashed radically. And so you can imagine what that's going to do to food costs if you haven't noticed. And part of the reason for that is that the fertilizers that we use, ammonia, for example, are created out of fossil fuels. And so you have no idea how much the entire economy, and so that's your bread and butter and your house and your heating and your air conditioning and your travel and your vacations and your kids' future. That's all dependent on the fossil fuel economy.

And so Carney, there's two tactics you can take to Carney. One is either he's learned that his net zero preoccupation was wrong, which means every single thing he thought while he was being educated and while he had his high falutin career, every single thing he thought was radically not only wrong, but the opposite of the truth. That's one conclusion. Or he still thinks what he's always thought, radically not only wrong, but the opposite of the truth. That's one conclusion. Or he still thinks what he's always thought,

which is certainly what it seems to be in his book, Values, and certainly seems to be the case with his continuing insistence that we have to hit net zero by 2050 and spend $2 trillion doing it. The alternative conclusion to he was just radically wrong and has learned is that he hasn't learned a damn thing. And it's still his fundamental axiomatic presupposition that human being industrial production leading

to carbon dioxide overproduction is an existential threat that should be everyone's top priority for every financial decision that they make and that everything should be everyone's top priority for every financial decision that they make, and that everything should be secondary to that. And that implies that his claim to eliminate the carbon tax, for example, and to move Canada onto a more solid industrial footing in the future is just a lie. So those are your options. Either he was completely wrong about everything for the last 20 years in the worst direction possible

and has learned, or that he hasn't learned a damn thing and is still sticking to exactly what he wrote in his book, Values in 2021, and exactly what he's indicated in all of his public pronouncements, and he's going to act as if he's in favor of Canadian economic development, but he's going to keep pursuing a net zero agenda because that's priority number one, and you peasants are too stupid to understand the reality of the

situation that's in front of you. And so that's going to mean no flights for you and no clothes for you, maybe three changes of clothing per year, no, only a short haul flight every three years, for example, a radical reduction in the amount of meat that you eat, a radical reduction in private car ownership, and you might think, well, that's paranoid conspiracy theory, but you can go look at the documents of the C40 coalition of the top cities in the world and look at their aims for the next 20 years, and you can decide if they're on the same side as

Carney or whether they're on your side and you can draw your own conclusion because if your presumption is that the planet is facing an environmental catastrophe because of carbon dioxide production and that that's such an emergency that we have to do every possible thing we can with every financial decision, no matter how much it costs to ameliorate it, then there's no limit whatsoever to the amount of power that you're willing to expend to make that happen. And we know what will happen because it's already happened to Germany and the UK, and it's happened to a large degree to Canada. And there's no reason to assume at all that Mark Carney is a leopard who's changed his spots, quite the contrary. And so what's the conclusion with regards to his pedigree?

It's like Mark Carney's an educated person and he's no fool, but he's completely untested in the electoral domain. And he obviously has contempt for it because he's willing to be prime minister and to act like a governing prime minister, despite the fact that he's never put his policies to test in front of the Canadian electorate, despite the fact that only 130,000 people have positioned him as Prime Minister, and despite the fact that

he's apparently willing to deceive Canadians about being an outsider, which he most certainly is not, and with regards to his actual aims, which is net zero by 2050, and he's willing to claim the contrary because he's going to turn Canada into an industrial powerhouse. So that means he's either wrong about everything he's believed in the last 20 years and radically so, or he's lying because he thinks the emergency justifies it, and maybe because he's after power. Now let's investigate that a little bit. So is Carney primarily after power? Perhaps for the reasons that we just described, perhaps because he's using the reasons we just described,

his concern for the future to justify his grip on power. That's another alternative. Well, let's see how he's conducted himself. Well, he hasn't complained to Canadians with regards to his true aim. It's like, is he a net zero advocate by 2050 or not? Well, we want to build Canada into an industrial powerhouse. It's like, which is it, buddy? Because you're not going to do both. You're not going to crisscross Canada with fossil fuel pipelines while aiming at net zero by 2050.

You're not going to do that. And so you were either wrong and so wrong that it's a miracle or you're deceiving Canadians because you think the emergency justifies it. That's the stark reality of the situation. Now what is the evidence that the more stark reality, for example that Carney is deceiving Canadians, what's the evidence that that's the case? Okay, well let's say that it wasn't the case and that he's playing a straight game. Well, so then you're going to ask yourself, why did he parachute himself into power the way he did and why has he claimed publicly that he's an outsider? But let's say...

Oh boy. Let's say... Just throw in and out a wild... Look at you trying to preserve the relationship all of a sudden. A wild hypothetical. Let's say the candidate wasn't part of the government. Let's say the candidate did have a lot of economic experience. Let's say the candidate did deal with crises.

Let's say the candidate had a plan to deal with the challenges in the here and now. You sneaky! You're running as an outsider!" -"I am an outsider." He proclaimed that on American television, on the Jon Stewart show, in front of, like, millions of people, right? So that's an international claim. We'll give the devil his due a little bit more.

Carney's actually learned. He saw what happened under Trudeau. He can see that the net zero pursuit is untenable, although he has not formally repudiated it one bit, and it's still written down in black and white in his values. But then what would he do? I'll hear.

He'd call an election, because he's duty bound, morally bound to call an election, and he would make the election long, as long as he possibly could, because that way he could go door to door, and he could meet the Canadian public, and he could let them get to know who he is, and he could take questions,

intrusive questions from the press without getting peevish and annoyed, and he would outline his new industrial vision, and he would say why he was wrong about Net Zero and about ESG, that's that presumption that there should be central planning to fill the gaps of the free market and that he was wrong about DEI and that's about everything that he believed and that he didn't understand Canada's

core values and despite the fact that he was absolutely wrong about everything he believed, he's now the guy to lead the country into an industrial revolution. And he could take a couple of months to convince Canadians of that, or he could call a snap election hoping that all of the noise around Donald Trump and his relatively foolish proclamations re-Canada has given Carney an undeserved advantage, and he could shorten the election cycle so that Canadians can't figure out who the hell he is and rely on the apparent validity of his resume to propel him into the seat of the prime ministership.

And so what's he doing? Well, you can ask yourself that. It's like, did you know any of these things about Carney that I just described? And if you didn't know them, well, why didn't you know them? And well, part of the reason for that is well Carney hasn't told anyone although he did write the book Values but who's read that right? But I read it and I understood it and I'm doing my best to explain to you what it meant. He's got the wrong idea about Canadian values because we're not utopian, socialist, elitist, top-down, central-planning society. We're a Western democracy.

And the principles that Carney outlined as Cardinal values of Canadians are not the Cardinal values of Canadians. And it's an interesting thing for the bloody Liberals to do anyways because under Trudeau, we heard nothing but the proclamation that Canada had no core set of values and that we were really a post-national state and that insofar as we had any national identity at all, it was mostly that of genocidal, capitalist, patriarchal oppressors. And so I don't understand at all how the liberals under Carney, who's certainly not an outsider, can be waving the flag of Canadian virtue at this point while also proclaiming that they've got their finger

on what the Canadian core values are, translated into DEI and ESG and net zero, which are radical leftist globalist utopian, top-down central planning dogmas that are incredibly expensive and truly ill-advised. Now, Carney, as far as I can tell, would rather that you didn't figure that out. And the reason for that is that he's riding high in the polls because Canadians look at his resume and they think he's qualified. And I can understand that because at the surface, his resume is impressive.

But the question is, what has all that experience taught him? Well, it's taught him to be elitist to the extreme. It's taught him that him and his cabal of compatriots at the globalist level, no better than you dimwitted peasants who are going to have to pay the price for his utopian vision. And it's taught him that,

while the environmental crisis is so terrible, that's the carbon dioxide problem, that it's up to that while the environmental crisis is so terrible, that's the carbon dioxide problem, that it's up to a handful of globalist elites to take the steps necessary to put things right. And if that means that the typical Canadian has to be made poor, well, that's going to happen anyways as the planet boils. And besides that, you peasants are too dim-witted to understand the nature of the, what would you say, existential

threat that confronts you and it's too bad for you that your children are going to be poor. Because you need that, we need that to save the planet anyways as we jet off to Davos in our private aircraft and conspire to save the world. And so let's talk about Davos because that's the WAF people, the World Economic Forum, and so I'll tell you a little story about them and how much they care about what you bloody peasants think. So a couple of years ago, I formulated this Alliance for Responsible Citizenship with a handful of people in the UK

and a stellar group of advisors. And it's spread itself out now internationally with some real effect. And we had about 4,500 people come to the UK a month ago and that went very nicely. And you might say, well, how do we know that you people aren't just another bunch of globalist utopians and it's another conspiratorial cabal to help with the little guy? And here's what I would say to that, you know, we made every single thing our speakers said public. It's all on the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship website. And so you can see exactly what we're up to

because we've been radically transparent. And then you might say, well, what's the consequence of that? And here's the consequence. In our first conference, we had a arena event that attracted 12,000 people where some of the primary people from the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship spoke directly to the public.

But the fact that we've released all these videos enables us now to contrast ourselves and our communication ability with the WEF, for example. So at the moment, our videos are outperforming the WEF videos by really by an order of magnitude. And so why is this relevant? Well, the WEF has been around for decades as the Davos globalist types conspire in their elitist bubble to manipulate the planet

to their own benefit and to hell with you peasants. And the proof of that is the fact that no one watches any of their content. Well, why? It's because they haven't put any effort into publicizing their content because they don't really give a damn

what you think or what you know. And so the ARC, for example, like we're kind of a bare bones organization, we've only been around for two years and we're still struggling to find economic purchase and we've managed to produce a communication network that has radically, has been radically more successful at communicating with the public than the WF despite the fact that they've been around for decades. And Carney is part of that Davos crowd. And if you think that they care what you think, then you should give some thought to the fact that this is gonna be a very short election.

And that the reason for that is that Carney would rather not that you didn't know what he's like or what he's up to because he has a planet to save and you dim-witted populists are just gonna get in the way with your idiot concern for your heating and your air conditioning and the odd vacation and for the like economic future of your children. And so we'll unwind right to the beginning.

Look, Carney looks impressive on paper and I can understand why Canadians think he's the man for the moment because he was vetted, for example, by the Brits who put him in charge of the Bank of England. But I can also tell you what happened when he was in charge of the Bank of England. And I know this because I know people who were affected, and I mean rich people, who were affected by his decisions as head of the Bank of England. So the policies that Carney put forward

as the head of the Bank of England produced an asset boom. And what that means is that stock prices went upward radically. And what that meant was that the people who have a tremendous amount of money got a lot more money as a consequence of Carney's maneuvering. And that, I would say, shows you that's a good case example of exactly who he prioritizes despite his protestations When push comes to shove and so the people that I've been talking to and these are very wealthy people and they're very well connected Although they have a conscience as it turns out. We're not very happy that the quantitative easing Principles that Carney put into place in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis made

the rich much richer and the rest of everyone else, and that meant everyone but the extremely rich substantially poorer. And so that's just, so that's an example of what happened when Carney was running the Bank of England. And so there's no evidence that he's like a friend of yours. Now then we might address another issue. It's like the issue of Trump and his saber rattling. Well, the accusations that have gone out with regards to Pierre Poliev is that Poliev is

just mega light. You know, he's a make America great advocate, which he's not, by the way, and that a vote for Poliev is really a vote for Paul Yev is really a vote for the Trump types. Well, let's see what Trump himself thinks. Well, a few days ago when this was recorded, Trump came out and said, he didn't give a damn who ran Canada. And so, you know, we can conclude from that what we might as Canadians.

One thing we can conclude, and you know, you want to put this in perspective, is that the new American administration has a lot of countries to keep track of. And Canada is the US's major training partner, and we should get some due consideration. But that doesn't mean that the new administration has had Canada in its sights, so to speak, or even understands the Canadian political landscape particularly well. And it's my impression, and I've done some digging, that Trump didn't understand that his comments about Canada and the tariffs and his promise threat to turn Canada into

the 51st state would be utilized by the Liberals to resurrect them from the well-deserved death they had already managed and to raise them up above the Conservatives. He didn't know that. Now you could say, well, he should have. It's like, yeah, fair enough, but it doesn't matter because he didn't. And so I don't know if he would have cared if he didn't know, but he didn't know. But the upshot is the liberals have leapt ahead.

Now then you might say, that's no problem because Mark Carney, man, he's got the international cachet to put that orange-haired son of a bitch in his place. And then you might think, well, what does Trump think about that? And what Trump said was, he'd rather negotiate with a liberal. Now you could say, well, that's because he thinks Carney is much more confident and competent than Poliev,

who he described as no friend to him and no friend to the MAGA movement, by the way. Or you could read it, and I would read it this way, knowing something about Trump, that because Trump is radically pro-American and because the free trade era has radically come to an end, that Trump is looking at Canada thinking if Canadians are foolish enough to elect that Piker Carney,

who's a retread of the worst of Trudeau, although much more effective on the managerial front, let's say, then we'll be able to crush him extremely effectively at the negotiating table. We have contempt for everything he stands for and that would be a real good thing for us Americans as we pursue our own self-interest. And so if you think that Trump is intimidated by Carney and his international expertise, you don't understand the Americans and you certainly don't understand

Trump because not only is that not the case, and I know it's not the case because I have extensive contacts in DC, which I have carefully developed over the last five years, precisely for moments like this. And they tell me what's going on. It's not like Trump and the mega Republicans think that Carney is a credible canny negotiator that's going to bring them to heel. Quite the bloody contrary. Now, you know, can Poliev step up and do a better job than Carney?

Well, you know, Canadians tend to get overshadowed at the bargaining table with regards to the Americans because they're very canny negotiators and we have a lot to learn in that regard. But what we could do and perhaps would do with a conservative government if they got their act together is foster Canadian independence from the United States in a very real way, remove borders to inter-provincial trade, crisscross the country with pipelines, radically improve our fossil fuel based economy, move our refining capacity back into Canada, develop something approximating a real industrial policy, and maybe on something approximating a wartime footing,

given the magnitude of the threat from the Americans, deal more effectively with the Germans and the Japanese, for example, who have already indicated their inexhaustible thirst for Canadian resources, make ourselves into the industrial powerhouse that Canada could most clearly be, indicate our willingness to contribute to military defense in the manner that we should, given the necessity for that in an increasingly unstable world, signal to the Americans thereby that we're willing to pursue our weight, but that we don't bloody well need them if Bush comes to shove and then sit down with them at the negotiating table like a real competitor and contender and

potential ally. And if you think it's going to happen under Carney, well, you can take Trump at his word. He already indicated his contempt for the liberal types. And he said that, you know, he's no friend of Poliev. Well, you know, you want to read behind the lines a little bit. And as far as I can tell, what that means is that Trump would rather deal with a contemptible, weak-kneed liberal than with a conservative who actually puts Canada first. And so don't be thinking that Carney's the guy with the cachet to put Trump back on his heels because Trump has faced people who are a lot more intimidating than Carney.

And it's not only that, like, Carney stands for everything that the more radical fringe of the Democratic Party stands for in the United States. And it's not like Trump has any sympathy for the Democrats as a whole, and certainly not for the more leftist eco-fringe of the Democrats. And it's clearly the case that if Carney was an American politician, he'd be Gavin Newsom. Like he'd be exactly the sort of person that's pushed exactly the policies that Trump can't tolerate that have emanated from the Democrats. And so it's a delusion. So Carney has a very impressive

resume, read shallowly, and I can understand why Canadians are relying on that as an indicator of his competence, and they're also hopeful that he's a new guy, which he most certainly isn't. and they're also hopeful that he's a new guy, which he most certainly isn't. But if you look into what he's actually done and what the consequences have been, and if you actually assess what he said in his book, Values, for example,

where it's written down in black and white, you find that if we elect Carney in Canada, which at the moment looks like a reasonable likelihood, we're facing the same situation that we faced under Trudeau, except Carney will be more effective at implementing it. And so we're going to do worse faster, and with a lot more virtue signaling. And that's hard to believe because, you know,

Trudeau virtue signaled to a degree that was virtually impossible as he impoverished Canada to no positive end whatsoever on the environmental front. And all that's gonna happen is that that's gonna be much worse under Carney. So we already see that Carney set at serious odds, for example, with Daniel Smith in Alberta. And that's a continuation of the scrap that Smith

and the West has been having with Trudeau and the Liberals and the East as a whole. That's not going to rectify itself. It isn't even obvious to me that the country itself, which the Liberals for the last 10 years have regarded as an entity with no real central identity anyways, it isn't obvious to me at all that the country is going to be able to survive another four-year round of liberal, utopian, globalist, environmentalist, net-zero catastrophe. And so don't be thinking that Carney's a new guy.

And don't be thinking that his stellar resume indicates that he's gonna produce some kind of economic revival in Canada, because all the evidence points to the fact that he's gonna continue to pursue the net-zero delusions that he's already established as the center of his entire edifice of thought. And if you don't believe me, and maybe you don't want to or can't, or you doubt me, read values yourself. And then you'll see, read the first three chapters and the last three chapters, because

the middle of it's just boilerplate. It's only there to make the book thick instead of pamphlet length. And so an hour of reading and you'll figure out who Carney is. Now, if you believe that carbon dioxide output on the part of Canada constitutes an existential threat of the sort that requires us to become poverty stricken

over the next 40 years, well, we virtue signal about how the planet could be saved, while doing absolutely nothing about actually addressing any true environmental problems, then Carney's your guy. And if you think that core Canadian values are the values of the radical utopian environmentalists left, then Carney's your guy.

Now, he purports to be a free market believer, which takes him out of the left-wing camp, but the way he maneuvers around that problem is by saying, well, the free market doesn't address the really important problems, and it's the central planners, the highly educated technocratic central planners that have to pick up the slack. And so he says free market, but what he means is central planning, free market. And what he means

by central planning is his vision and what his vision is, that's the other thing about Carney. I read his book, Values, and one of the things I really hope for in a book is, A, that I learn something and all I learned from reading values was something about carny I didn't learn anything of any substantial import in consequence of reading the book and and and I learned that he didn't have a single original idea there wasn't a single original idea in that entire book like the first three chapters in the last three chapters outline his ideas, but they're not his ideas.

Diversity, inclusivity, equity, that's not Carney's idea. Environmental social governance, these new policies that are hypothetically going to govern the biggest financial institutions in the world and every financial decision everybody makes with stakeholder capitalism and central top-down planning, none of that's his idea. Net zero, that's not his idea. And Carney had the opportunity and values to put forward a platform of ideas because he could have said, well, here's the problem with the fossil fuel economy and it's leading us into this carbon dioxide catastrophe. And here's an absolutely

detailed industrial plan for how Canada could move itself forward, own its own technology, develop a new industrial base that was renewable. Here's the detailed proposals and here's the vision. Here's the proof of concept. There's none of that in this book. There's hand waving about how the magical new renewable economy, and he has the gall to talk about hydrogen, which is like the most appalling proposition possible. No one takes the idea of a hydrogen economy seriously, certainly not in the next few decades. There's no ideas and values except DEI, ESG, and net zero, and those aren't his ideas. And worse than that, they're like the worst ideas of the last 20 years and they're already outdated.

So let's talk about that for a minute. So it was true that Carney took a leadership role as the UN climate envoy and it was true that he organized like 400 of the world's biggest financial institutions to pursue what's essentially a Net Zero agenda. And that happened, let's say, roughly five years ago. Okay, so let's ask ourselves what's happened in the interim? And the answer is, despite his success in doing so, all the big players have bailed out. BlackRock, Vanguard, all of these big players have decided that pursuing the Net Zero agenda, DEI and ESG, that's not going to fly. And so even if you believe that Carney had been properly successful in organizing these big financial institutions to hit the Net Zero targets, you're faced with the problem that they don't think so anymore and that that whole coalition is falling apart.

So my interpretation of part of the reason that Carney's motivated to become prime minister is because his international career has collapsed in failure. And so now where is he? Well, you might as well go to Canada. It's kind of a ratty little backwards country anyways, and you don't really want to bother with niceties

like actually having a seat and meeting Canadians and being elected. You can just hop in because you have this stellar resume and you're the Bank of England former governor and you can tell people what's what. And you can tell Canadians that you're an outsider and that there's going to be some sort of economic revolution. And you can do that while lying about your actual goals, which are net zero, or failing to explain how you made such a cataclysmic mistake, and

you're going to do that because you are a complete bloody failure on the international front, and that's embarrassing, and it's going to become stark bloody obvious in the next five years. And then I would say, as I already said, that if that wasn't the case, then Carney would let Canadians get to know who the hell he is, and he wouldn't have called a snap election that will unfold in virtually no time. And I might also say he would have agreed to come on this damn podcast as well,

because I offered him that opportunity because I could be sitting here talking to him, and his staff was reasonably polite in their insistence that they couldn't find the time, but I'd also like to point out that I interviewed Poliev relatively recently, and that was by any standard of evaluation, the most successful political interaction

in terms of distribution and impact of any Canadian political move in the last hundred years. We got something like 50 million views. And so if Carney actually wanted to communicate to Canadians, even Canadians like me, well, he had the opportunity. You know, and I might say, well, if I was Carney, I wouldn't have come on my show. And that might be true because I'm not a fan

and I would have done my best to be like a reasonable interviewer. And I'm kind of an agreeable guy. So I probably would have been. And I can see why he didn't want to do it, but he didn't do it. And so you can make of that what you will, and then you can also read between the lines, if you're willing. You watch how he responds to press inquiries and who he talks to. Talking to CBC doesn't count, right? Or CTV, because the Canadian legacy media is heavily government subsidized. And so he doesn't like talking to reporters anyways,

but those he talks to are government-funded reporters. Well, he won't talk to me, and he won't sit down with me for three hours and hash this stuff out. And I would have done it politely, skeptically. You know, I've done interviews with 500 people, and many of them had political views that I didn't agree with. Many of them were, well, the Democrats, for example,

Tulsi Galbert and RFK, Dean Phillips, who had held positions that ideologically would have aligned with Carney at least at one point in their political careers. And so that opportunity was open to him and he didn't take it. And so instead I'm talking to you directly about who Mark Carney is and trying to walk

you through what I've concluded. You know, I've done as much studying as I could in the last couple of months, including reading his book twice and talking to formidable people in Canada about what they think and my connections in the UK, trying to get a handle on this guy and evaluating his policies in light of what I know about the UK and about Germany and about the Net Zero catastrophe and in light of what I know from talking extensively to people like Bjorn Lombard and other people who are, Richard Lindsberg for example, who are stellar scientific critics of the entire Net Zero apocalypse game. So in conclusion, Canada has a new Prime Minister. Who is Mark J.

Carney? Well, he's someone who on paper looks stellar. He's someone who because of that pedigree and educational history, Canadians regard as a potential contender with Trump. What do we conclude if we look more deeply into what those claims truly mean? Well, if we do an analysis of Carney's career and his writings, what we find is that he believes that there is no more important existential issue facing mankind and Canadians

than the apocalypse that's impending because of carbon dioxide overproduction. And as far as I can tell, all that he does stems from that initial presupposition. Now, if you accept that presupposition, well, then perhaps Carney's your man. If you think there are credible reasons for concluding that there are other important things that might be taken into consideration, like the fact that Canada's economy is collapsing and that the prognostications for its continued collapse, especially given the industrial policies that someone like Carney is likely to pursue. The prognostications is that unraveling will continue and accelerate.

And so you have a choice. Now Carney is riding high in the polls at the moment. And there are two reasons for that. One is Trump's carelessness with regards to his comments about the unviable status of Canada as a country. And the other is the fervent hopes that of Canadians that Carney is someone new as he purports to be, which is an outright lie, by the way, and that his resume makes him a credible contender with Trump. Now I took apart his resume and I described what Trump really thinks of Carney and we don't have to analyze that much because Trump said he would rather deal with a liberal than with

a strong conservative. So given Trump's radical pro-America stance and his skepticism about the kind of free trade agreements that have characterized the Canada-U.S. relationship for the last 50 years, you can conclude from that what you might. Carney, in my estimation, doesn't want Canadians to dig too deeply into exactly who he is and what he stands for.

He's more of the same and worse, and he's more of the same because he believes the things that Trudeau so shallowly believed insofar as Trudeau believed anything, and the most important of those things is that there's nothing more crucial than the impending apocalypse consequential to carbon dioxide overproduction. And so anything goes given that set of presuppositions. And so he's going to call a snap election as rapidly as possible so that he can continue to maneuver towards his net zero goals, regardless of what Canadians want or say,

because he's a leader of the elites, and their presumption is that the hyper-educated technocrats know better. And so if you want a future of increasing economic constraint and lack of opportunity for your children and a further degeneration of Canada into a third-rate power, well, we do absolutely nothing to improve the environment whatsoever, just like Germany and the UK have failed to do, then Carney's your man. And if you have some questions about that, then perhaps you should give some serious

consideration to the results of the upcoming election and decide if what sort of country you want your children to inherit. ["The Star-Spangled Banner"]